Standing
Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are
required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications
are approved by the Chairperson of the Waitematā Local Board. This means
that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda.
Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the
meeting.

8.1 Deputation:
Jo Crowley - The Charlotte Museum Trust

Purpose

1. Jo
Crowley will be in attendance to speak to the board about a lease application
on behalf of the Charlotte Museum Trust.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) thank
Jo Crowley for her attendance and presentation about a lease application on
behalf of the Charlotte Museum Trust.

8.2 Deputation:
Dan Shanan - Doc Edge

Purpose

1. Dan
Shanan will be in attendance to speak to the board on behalf of Doc Edge.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) thank
Dan Shanan for his attendance and presentation on behalf of Doc Edge.

8.3 Deputation:
Sarah Smuts-Kennedy - Spray Free Auckland

Purpose

1. Sarah
Smuts-Kennedy will be in attendance to speak to the board about Spray Free
Auckland on behalf of the For the Love of Bees Collective.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) thank
Sarah Smuts-Kennedy for her attendance and presentation about Spray Free
Auckland on behalf of the For the Love of Bees Collective.

8.4 Deputation:
Mark Knoff-Thomas - Flagpoles in Station Square

Purpose

1. Mark
Knoff-Thomas will be in attendance to speak to the board about flagpoles in
Station Square on behalf of the Newmarket Business Association.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) thank
Mark Knoff-Thomas for his attendance and presentation about flagpoles in
Station Square on behalf of the Newmarket Business Association.

A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been
received.

6. In
response to resolution number WTM/2017/70 from May 2017 we have worked with
Auckland Council to prepare a rough order of cost for tree planting in St
Mary’s Road and developed two options for the board:

· Option 1 is to plant
trees in current open areas which would allow 16 new trees in the street. Rough
order of cost is $8,000. This would require consultation with directly affected
adjacent landowners and checking of underground services.

· Option 2 would be to
consider removing all the existing trees which are of various types, sizes and
condition and fully replant the entire road with 40 new trees. Rough order of
cost for this is $20,000. Due to the size of some trees this would require
resource consent and full street consultation.

7. Options
will be brought back to a workshop for the Board’s direction regarding
progressing the project.

Traffic Control Committee decisions

8. Please
see attachment A which outlines decisions made in the Waitematā Local
Board area in August and September 2017. Auckland Transport's resolution and
approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put
in place and can be legally enforced.

Workshop overview

9. Auckland
Transport attended three workshops with the board on the 5th of
September. These included a briefing on the results of public consultation for
the Grafton Residential Parking zone, an update on the pedestrian footpath link
from Parnell Station to Carlaw Park, and a briefing on the Tamaki Drive cycle
route.

10. Auckland
Transport also attended three workshops on the 3rd of October. These
included a briefing on the results of public consultation into the Grosvenor
Street and Bond Street intersection improvement project, an update on the Daldy
Street upgrade, and a briefing on a proposal for a masterplan for St Georges
Road.

Upcoming projects and
activities

Repair work to start on Quay Street seawall

11. Auckland Transport is about to start work on repairs to
part of the seawall in the ferry basin at the bottom of Queen St. Due to the
age of the seawall Auckland Transport has been regularly monitoring its
condition. The area of erosion is approximately 16 metres long and varies in
depth from 0.2 metres to 1.2 metres. Engineering firm Tonkin and Taylor has
completed a preliminary stability analysis and have confirmed that there is no
risk of imminent failure and have recommended completing the works as soon as
possible to prevent the erosion from continuing.

12. Auckland Transport is progressing with design and
construction planning to begin repairs to ensure we can complete this work
prior to the busy summer holidays. Repair work will commence in around two
weeks and will take six to 10 weeks. This will stop any further erosion.

13. Berth 1A will be closed during repairs. Auckland Transport
is working with its operators because some ferry services will have to be
relocated within the ferry basin. Full services should be able to be
maintained. The cost of the repair work is expected to be under $1million.

Other projects

14. The table
below has a general summary of projects and activities of interest to the board
with their current status. Please note that all timings are indicative and are
subject to change:

Preparing for public consultation. It is
not confirmed when this will take place.

Northwestern busway – proposed
dedicate bus lane from City to West Auckland

Public consultation has been suspended
until it is clearer whether the central government policy direction may
change. AT and NZTA expect to develop a revised consultation timeline.
Consultation material will be sent to the Board ahead of public release.

15. The board’s views are incorporated during consultation on any
proposed schemes. The table below has a summary of consultation with the board
on key projects in the board area:

Project
Name

Stage of
consultation

Parnell Residential Parking Zone

The project team is preparing this for
public consultation. An update has been sent to the board for their
information and full details of the public consultation is expected to be
sent to the board for their information.

Great North/Grosvenor/Bond consultation

A workshop was held with the board on the
3rd October to brief them on the results of the public
consultation and seek the board’s feedback.

North-western Busway

A workshop was held with the board on 4th
July 2017. Consultation is currently on hold.

Grafton Residential parking zone

Workshop was held on the 5th September to
outline results of public feedback. The board’s feedback was
received by Auckland Transport on 9 of October (attachment B).

Tamaki Drive cycle way

The project proposal was sent to board
for their information on the 19th May. The board was updated with the results
of public consultation on the 18th of August. The Board’s feedback was
received by Auckland Transport on the 7th of September.

Nelson Street Phase 3

Consultation material was sent to the
board for their information on the 28th of August. Public consultation closed
on the 1st of October and a workshop to seek the board’s feedback has
been scheduled for the 7th of November.

Māori
impact statement

16. No
specific issues with regard to impacts on Māori
are triggered by this report and any engagement with Māori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

17. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and
consultation.

Land owner approval for the installation of the
Flagtrax system on three light poles within Station Square

File No.: CP2017/21865

Purpose

1. To
seek support from the Waitematā Local Board to approve the land owner
application from the Newmarket Business Association for the installation of the
Flagtrax system on three light poles within Station Square.

Executive
summary

2. The
Newmarket Business Association seeks land owner approval to install the
Flagtrax system on three light poles within Station Square.

3. Each
of the three light poles will display two vertical hanging flags side-by-side.

4. The
flags aim to provide a visual marker for events, festivals and campaigns, and
will not be of a commercial nature.

5. Staff
recommends that the local board supports the application as the Flagtrax system
will not impact on the public use of, or access to, Station Square and will help to promote
events occurring in the Newmarket area.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) approve
land owner consent to the Newmarket Business Association for the installation
of the Flagtrax system on three light poles within Station Square

Comments

6. The
Newmarket Business Association (the applicant) seeks land owner approval for the installation of the Flagtrax system on three light poles
within Station Square.

7. The
applicant seeks to undertake this to synchronise Station Square with the rest
of the Newmarket precinct, with each light pole displaying two vertical hanging
flags side-by-side, attached to brackets that are secured against the pole. The
light poles and flags (with Flagtrax system) can be seen in Attachment A.

8. The Flagtrax system allows the flags to be installed and removed
from ground level, or from a low level step ladder by the applicant. The
Flagtrax system is being utilised as this is the most practical and effective
option for the applicant to install flags without having to use an external
party to do so.

9. In terms of the proposed flags on display - one flag will always be
branded "Newmarket" and the other will, depending on the time of
year, promote an event or festival. The applicant’s current flag range
includes: Christmas, the Pride Festival, Chinese New Year, ANZAC Day, Matariki,
the Italian Festival and a generic Newmarket campaign flag (Park, Shop Dine,
Play Work, Live). No flags will be commercialised.

10. The
purpose of the flags is to provide a visual marker for events, festivals and
campaigns that are happening in Newmarket and seek to enhance the visual
appearance of Station Square, which is in conjunction with a wider enhancement
project on the Station Square's overall appearance. The desired outcome is for
a better utilised public place, that is visually appealing, and a space people
want to spend time in, and more in keeping with the Newmarket precinct.

11. In
terms of the proposed physical installation of the Flagtax system, the area
immediately surrounding each of the light poles will be coned off for the
duration of the installation, and all steps will be taken by the contractors to
mitigate any risks to members of the public and others, including the
implementation of health and safety requirements. Installation is expected to
take one working day.

12. Council’s
policy on flags in public open space, such as Station Square, is controlled by
the Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2015. Clause 3(7) of the Signage Bylaw
exempts park-related signage such as education, public awareness and
information signage from all of its requirements apart from the safety and
amenity requirements (which includes, for example, ensuring signage is secured
safely and does not obscure any particular important architectural building
features) in Part 2 – Requirements applying to all publicly
visible signage of the Signage Bylaw 2015.The flags proposed to be
installed here will be required to comply with these requirements; otherwise a
dispensation to the bylaw will need to be obtained. If the flags do comply with
all requirements, the flags are considered a permitted activity and can occur
as of right, provided land owner approval is obtained for their installation.

13. Council’s
Service and Asset team has draft practice notes and guidelines for signage on
parks (which includes flags), which takes guidance from the signage bylaw. The
practice notes state that signage in parks should relate to the role and
activities of the park, as well as other events that are occurring in other
parks and open space within the area. Given the Newmarket Business Association
seeks to utilise the installation of the Flagtrax system to advertise events
occurring in Station Square and Newmarket’s parks and open spaces (and as
the flags will not be commercialised), the proposal is consistent with the
draft practice notes as well.

14. The options
available to the board are to support or reject the land owner application.

15. If the board
supports the application, the applicant will install the Flagtrax system on
three light poles within Station Square to advertise events and festivals. This
is the recommended option. If the board rejects the application, this will not
allow the applicant to install the Flagtrax system to advertise events and
festivals.

16. Staff
recommends that the application is approved as the installation of the Flagtrax
system will not adversely affect the use of, or access to, Station Square and
will help to promote events occurring in Newmarket.

Consideration

Local
board views and implications

17. A
memo was sent to the Waitematā Local Board from staff regarding the land
owner approval application on 26 September 2017, seeking the board’s
support for land owner approval to be issued to the applicant. The Parks
Portfolio holder declined to exercise its delegation under the delegations
protocol and requested that the application and associated report be reported
to a full local board business meeting for a formal decision to be made.

18. The
land owner approval application for the installation of the Flagtrax system is
consistent with the Waitematā Draft Local Board Plan 2017. In particular
Outcome 1: Inclusive communities that are vibrant, healthy and connected, and
Outcome 2: Attractive and versatile public places that meet our
community’s needs, as the proposal will encourage community interaction
and engagement through the installation of the Flagtrax system, which will help
to promote and advertise local events.

Māori
impact statement

19. The
installation of the Flagtrax system does not trigger any Treaty of Waitangi
settlement issues or matters in relation to customary rights outcomes. In
this matter iwi consultation has not been undertaken by the applicant as there
are no readily identifiable impacts on Māori and any
impacts will be no different to those on others.

Implementation

20. If the local
board supports the application, the applicant will install the Flagtrax system
at Station Square.

1. This report seeks the Waitematā Local
Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to recommend
to the Finance and Performance Committee the disposal
of the council owned properties at 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell and 108 Hepburn
Street, Freemans Bay.

Executive
summary

2. The
council-owned sites at 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell and
108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay have been identified as potentially
surplus to council requirements through a review process. Consultation with council departments and its Council Controlled
Organsiations (CCOs), Iwi authorities and the Waitematā Local Board has now taken place.

3. No
alternative service use has been identified for the properties through the
rationalisation process. Due to this, Panuku recommends disposal of the
sites.

4. A
resolution approving the disposal of the subject sites is required from the
Finance and Performance Committee before the proposed divestment can be
progressed.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) endorse Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to
dispose of 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell.

b) endorse Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to
dispose of 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay.

Comments

5. Panuku
and Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in Community
Facilities work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property
portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify
properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to
requirements and may be suitable to sell. The subject sites were
identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

6. Once
a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with
council and its CCO’s through an expression of interest process, to
establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is
required for a future funded project.

7. Once
a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then
consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All sale
recommendations must be approved by Panuku’s Board before it makes a
final recommendation to Council’s Finance and Performance
Committee.

Property
information - 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell

8. The
348m2 vacant land site was acquired by the former Auckland City
Council (ACC) as part of a larger 6,160m2 block in 1925 for the
purpose of a council works depot.

9. In
1955 approximately 4,490m2 was removed for railway purposes, and in
1978 the residue was subdivided into three lots, as street, a second parcel
sold, and the third, being the subject site, retained in council ownership.

10. In October
2016 following a review by council’s Community Facilities department, 41
Cheshire Street, Parnell was released from service, as there were no future
service use requirements for the site. The property then became the
subject of a Panuku led rationalisation process.

11. The Auckland
Unitary Plan zoning is Public open space – informal recreation, it has a
2014 capital value of $155,000.

Property
information - 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay

12. The 188m2
site at 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay is the
residual land from property acquired by the former ACC during 1963-1969 for a
subdivision/development. It is comprised of two lots; Lot 1, being more
or less 22m2 is subject to an easement in favour of The Auckland
Electric Power Board. Lot 2, being more or less 166m2 is
vacant land.

13. 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay is the subject of a Panuku
led rationalisation process following a review by council’s Parks and
Recreation Policy team that found that the subject site does not support
quality public open space provision in the area and while located adjacent to
private reserve, it does not provide links to public open space.

14. The Auckland
Unitary Plan zoning is Residential -Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Zone, it has a 2016 capital value of $120,000.

Internal
consultation

15. The
rationalisation process for the two subject sites commenced in July 2017. No issues were raised and no
alternate service uses were identified during the internal consultation.

Consideration

Local
board views and implications

16. Local
boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for
specific properties. Following the close of the expression of interest
period, relevant local boards are engaged with.

17. Panuku attended a workshop with the Waitematā Local Board regarding the rationalisation
of the subject sites in
September 2017. No issues
were raised regarding the proposed disposals.

18. The board also highlighted work being undertaken by the
wider council group regarding access to the Parnell train station and
pedestrian routes/cycle ways. Panuku can support Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in subsequent negotiations that
may occur.

19. This
report provides the board with an opportunity to
formalise its views regarding the subject sites.

No site specific
feedback received for this site, noting that as per earlier conversations with
Te Runanga representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance
considerations will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua
hapū have been contacted
about properties in their rohe.

b) Ngāti
Whatua o Kaipara

No feedback received
for this site.

c) Ngāti
Whatua o Ōrakei

No feedback received
for this site.

d) Ngai
Tai ki Tamaki

No feedback received
for this site.

e) Ngāti
Tamaoho

No feedback received
for this site.

f) Te
ākitai - Waiohua

No feedback received
for this site.

g) Ngāti
Te Ata – Waiohua

No feedback received
for this site.

h) Te
Ahiwaru

No feedback received
for this site.

i) Ngati
Paoa

No feedback received
for this site.

j) Ngaati
Whanaunga

Ngaati Whanaunga
advised that the site is of cultural significance and expressed potential
commercial interest should the site be approved for disposal.

No site specific
feedback received for this site, noting that as per earlier conversations with
Te Runanga representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance
considerations will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua
hapū have been contacted
about properties in their rohe.

b) Ngāti
Whatua o Kaipara

No feedback received
for this site.

c) Ngāti
Whatua o Ōrakei

No feedback received
for this site.

d) Ngai
Tai ki Tamaki

No feedback received
for this site.

e) Ngāti
Tamaoho

No feedback received
for this site.

f) Te
ākitai - Waiohua

No feedback received
for this site.

g) Ngāti
Te Ata – Waiohua

No feedback received
for this site.

h) Te
Ahiwaru

No feedback received
for this site.

i) Ngati
Paoa

No feedback received
for this site.

j) Ngaati
Whanaunga

Ngaati Whanaunga
advised that the site is of cultural significance and expressed potential
commercial interest should the site be approved for disposal.

k) Ngati
Maru

No feedback received
for this site.

l) Ngati
Tamatera

No feedback received
for this site.

m) Patukirikiri

No feedback received
for this site.

n) Waikato
Tanui

No feedback received
for this site.

Implementation

22. The
council-owned sites at 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell and 108
Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay are not likely to be subject to offer back obligations to the former owners under section 40 of the
Public Works Act 1981.

23. Adjoining landowners of both 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell and 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay have expressed interest in
purchasing these sites, should they be approved for sale.

24. The terms and
conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial
delegation.

2. Under
the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 each local board is required
to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017.

3. The
Act also requires local board plans to be developed using the special
consultative procedure. The consultation period for the 2017 local board plans
ran from 22 May to 30 June.

4. The
Waitematā Local Board has considered the submissions received and feedback
gathered during the consultation period. As a result of this consideration
proposed changes to the draft plan are set out in paragraph 18 below.

5. The
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017, which includes proposed changes, is
attached to this report.

6. Pending
adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare
it for publication.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) adopt
the final Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 as set out in Attachment A to
the agenda report.

b) delegate
authority to the Waitematā Local Board Chair to approve any minor edits
that may be necessary prior to publication.

Comments

7. The
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (“the Act”) requires
local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan every three years.

8. The
Act requires each local board to adopt a local board plan no later than 31
October in the year immediately after the year of each triennial general
election. This means that the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017
must be adopted by 31 October 2017.

9. Local
board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The
plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how
the local board:

· makes
decisions on local activities and projects

· provides
input into regional strategies and policies.

10. The plans
form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for the
following three financial years and subsequent work programmes. They also
inform the development of council’s 10-year budget.

11. Under
Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use
the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The
consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017. The board also held
a hearing on 8 August 2017.

12. Submissions
were made through the following channels and coded together:

· online
form available on the Shape Auckland website

· hard
copy form included in the household summary document

· via
email or post.

13. In
total 157 submissions were received on the draft Waitematā Local Board
Plan 2017. In addition, 34 people provided feedback at engagement events and
there were 11 pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook. Fifteen people
spoke at the hearing.

Consideration
of submissions and feedback

14. The
board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered during the
consultation period.

15. The
board also held a hearing where submitters who were able to speak to their
written submission on 8 August 2017.

16. A
detailed report with data analysis report was provided for the hearing and
copies of all submissions and feedback have been provided. A workshop to
discuss the feedback was held on 5 September 2017.

17. Public
feedback received on the draft plan was very positive. The majority of
submitters were supportive of the plan, its direction and the themes
covered.

18. Key feedback
points are outlined in the table below. Analysis of these points, and any
resulting substantive proposed changes to the outcome chapters, are outlined in
the corresponding columns.

Key public feedback points

Analysis

Proposed changes

Seven submissions were received which highlighted the
importance of libraries to the community with some noting concerns regarding
the “Fit for the Future” project.

Outcome 1 already noted the importance of libraries as
community spaces. However given community concerns about the future of
our libraries it was noted that this section should be strengthened.

Add a new sentence to the relevant section to clarify
the Board’s positon as follows:

You have told us that our libraries are vital for
learning, socialising, leisure and personal development.

A common theme amongst many of the submissions was the
issue of homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly in the city centre.

The draft plan identified this as an issue both in the
Chair’s message and under Outcome 1.

Homelessness and rough sleeping is a complex issue for
which solutions require an integrated multi-agency approach. Progress,
such as the Housing First model, has been made in this space since the draft
plan.

The paragraph on pages 11 and 12 has been reworded
with a specific focus on sustainable solutions for homelessness. The
key initiatives regarding homelessness have been reworded.

A submission was received and spoken to at the hearing
which requested board advocacy to reduce alcohol harm. Safety was an
issue raised by a number of submitters including the Waitematā Youth
Collective.

Waitematā is a major centre for hospitality and
alcohol related harm can impact on community safety and perceptions of
safety. Alcohol harm was included in the 2014 Local Board Plan.

Include additional wording as follows:

As a major centre for entertainment and
hospitality, Waitematā has a high concentration of licensed
premises. For our communities to feel safe, it is important to reduce
alcohol-related harm and disruption.

An additional initiative has also been added

Work in partnership with residents, businesses,
local groups and agencies to reduce alcohol-related harm and create safer
communities.

This project has gained momentum since the draft plan,
with the community’s vision finalised and presented to the Board.
Since the draft plan this project has been agreed as the Board’s number
one local initiative to advocate to the Governing Body for funding in the
Long-Term Plan 2018-2028.

Reword Outcome 2 to reflect the significance of the
project:

A key board priority is developing a civic space at
Ponsonby Park (254 Ponsonby Road) in line with the community’s vision.

Reword the initiative:

Advocate for funding to develop Ponsonby Park (254
Ponsonby Road) as an open civic space.

A number of submitters supported the installation of
solar panels and solar lighting in council facilities and parks.

Outcome 2 refers to including sustainable energy
solutions with specific reference to Parnell Baths and the Grey Lynn
Community Centre. In response to the submissions the wording could be
amended to include all facilities (where feasible) rather than specifying
some facilities.

Reword the relevant paragraph as follows:

In line with our commitment to low carbon practices
we will keep pursuing opportunities to install renewable energy-efficient
solutions, such as solar panels and solar lighting in our parks and
facilities.

There were a considerable number of submissions
received (including 188 proforma submissions) asking the board to stop
spraying chemical herbicides, specifically Glyphosate, in streets and parks.

Outcome 3 already supports initiatives which minimise
agrichemical use. While the financial implications of changing weed
control methods needs to be further investigated there is clear community
support for alternative methods.

Reword to clarify and strengthen
the Board’s positon as follows:

We want council to eliminate agrichemical spraying
and embrace its commitment to minimise agrichemical use. You have told us to
support alternative weed management techniques such as the use of hot water
and mechanicaledging in parks

A submission by the St Lukes Environmental Protection
Society (STEPS) requested the Board to work with adjacent local boards to
recognise and protect the Three Kings-Meola-Western Springs Aquifer.

This proposal is supported by Outcome 3, which seeks
clean and healthy water and air. It is understood Albert-Eden and
Puketāpapa Local Boards support the proposal.

A new initiative has been added:

Partner with Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa local
boards to develop a protection and restoration strategy for Three
Kings-Meola-Western Springs aquifer and creeks.

Many submissions sought prioritising pedestrians with
a number supporting pedestrianisation of High Street and Queen Street

Outcome 5 seeks streets to be great public places and
designed to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Reword to explicitly reference this:

In line with the City Centre Masterplan, we support
removing the Hobson Street flyover, creating a green Victoria Street Linear
Park and Wellesley Street ‘bus boulevard’, along with making Quay
Street a pedestrian-friendly boulevard. We will also advocate for High Street
and Queen Street to be pedestrianised.

A submission from the Uptown Business Association
noted the importance of supporting businesses impacted by major projects such
as the City Rail Link.

Outcome 6 seeks a resilient local economy.
Waitematā is the location for many major transformational projects such
as the City Rail Link. Such projects will have a significant benefit
for Auckland, but due to their scale there are long periods of local disruption.
The city centre targeted rate is being used to improve the Albert Street
streetscape to assist local businesses during the digging work.

Add a new sentence under Growing our local economy:

Major projects such as the City Rail Link will
impact much of Waitematā. We will support initiatives to assist
businesses to remain economically viable during the construction of
transformational transport projects.

Include a new initiative:

Support initiatives which assist local businesses
during the construction of major transport projects

The Parnell Community Committee identified that the
Auckland seaport was not referred to in the draft plan.

Although outside of the board’s remit, the
Auckland seaport has a significant influence on the use of the waterfront
area, including public access, and is an economic driver. The traffic
generated by the Port also shapes the road network in Parnell and affects
connectivity between the Domain and the city centre.

Add a specific reference about the Port as follows:

Auckland’s seaport brings substantial
economic benefit to the region. Consideration of the Port’s operation
needs to be part of an integrated approach when planning the wider
waterfront, in collaboration with Ports of Auckland. We support maximising
connectivity to the waterfront for the public, with the Port remaining within
its existing footprint and Captain Cook Wharf opening up to use as a cruise
terminal.

19. Other
minor changes to the plan which respond to submissions include:

· Specific mention of professional
arts sector

· Specific mention of Basque and
Heard Parks for activation and improvement in the wording of the plan and
inclusion as an additional initiative

· Specific reference to a spatial
plan for Parnell (the “Parnell Plan”)

· Specific reference to Parnell
Station, including the need for improved connections to the station

· Reference to LED billboard
screens

· Increased reference to the city
fringe as a destination for tourists

· Amended wording around the
University of Auckland’s submission that international students wish to
meet kiwis and experience kiwi culture

· Specific mention of low emission
and electric vehicles for public transport

· Additional comment around
opportunities to use Te Reo Māori in signage

Changes
to the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017

20. The
Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017, with proposed substantive changes to the
outcome chapters as described in the above table and other minor changes, made
for the purposes of clarification, have been incorporated into Attachment
A for adoption.

Consideration

Local
board views and implications

21. The local
board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this
report.

22. In developing
the plan, the board considered:

· what
we already know about our communities and what is important to them

· feedback
received during the first two board terms (2010-2013 and 2013-2016)

· submissions
received via online forms, hardcopy forms, email and post as well as feedback
provided by people at the engagement events and gathered through Facebook

1. The Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) 2016/2017 Fourth Quarter
Report is presented to the Board to update members on activities, developments
and performance measures for the quarter ended 30 June 2017.

Executive
summary

2. RFA
enriches life in Auckland by engaging people in the arts, environment, sport
and events. The majority of RFA venues are located in the Waitematā Local
Board area, (with just three venues in other local board areas) and we value
the strong working relationship we have forged and continue to maintain with
the Board.

3. We work in partnership with key stakeholders to present exciting,
engaging and accessible experiences to those who live in and visit our city.
Our innovative programming delights people – every single day – and
our collections and venues are some of the best in New Zealand.

· Festival season in
the Aotea precinct including the Auckland Writers Festival and the New Zealand
International Comedy Festival

· International
touring musicals West Side Story and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor
Dreamcoat at The Civic

· World Masters Games
football competition at QBE Stadium

· Significant upgrade
and renewal works at Mt Smart Stadium

· Progress on Auckland
Zoo’s 10-year renewal programme

· Graduation season
for University of Auckland, Massey University and Unitec

5. RFA
continued to offer free or subsidised public programmes which contributed to
the social and cultural aspirations of Aucklanders including education and
learning activities for more than 250,000 Auckland children and families, free
entry to Auckland Art Gallery, and subsidised entries to Auckland Zoo.

6. In June 2017, the RFA Board considered a business case for the
expansion of the Aotea Centre - Aotea 2 Studios. Inspired
by international best practice, the expansion includes state of the art
specialised studios for music, drama and dance; development, rehearsal and
public performance spaces; first-class digital recording facilities; office
accommodation; and retail and food and beverage outlets. The RFA Board approved the project moving to detailed design stage.

1. To
provide comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document
“Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive
summary

2. The
Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its
consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by
Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the
proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The
Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual
elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the
opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4. The
Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which
remuneration is decided:

(i) each
council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a
remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the
mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the
council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s
salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of
responsibility

(v) there
is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no
more than a cabinet minister.

5. The
consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to
specific questions.

6. The
proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource
management hearings.

8. The
proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more
flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts
elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9. The
consultation document does not discuss local boards. In other councils,
community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they
were funded by a targeted rate. Local boards are very different from
community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of
their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish
to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration
of local boards should be decided.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) provide
its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document
Local Government Review.

Comments

Introduction

10. The
Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for
comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority
states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland
Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland
Council.

11. The Authority
has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected
members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to
respond as is the governing body.

12. Currently,
the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size
index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing
council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing
the portion of full-time work

(iv) the
Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool
equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of
responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5%
for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for
resource consent hearings.

13. The report
summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes
the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish
to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of
the proposals.

Council size

14. The
discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands
on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of
functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a
number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational
expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

15. For regional
councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area
would be.

16. For unitary
councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise
regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17. Detailed
explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion
document.

18. Remuneration
Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing
councils

· Are
there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the
factors identified?

· Are
there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used
and why?

· When
measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets,
including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If
not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of
assets?

19. Comments:

(i) It is noted that prior
to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils
experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex
issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii) In a review conducted in
2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal
population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such
growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20. The
discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for
different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational
expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure,
geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational
expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

21. Remuneration
Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of
evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each
type of council?

· If you believe
other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to
others?

22. Comments:

(i) Staff
do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23. Mayors are
considered to be full-time positions. The discussion document states that
a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the
size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would
set the mayor’s salary.

24. Remuneration
Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should
mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

· If
not, how should they be treated?

· Should
there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with
additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If
so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25. Comments:

(i) For Auckland Council,
the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been
treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities
since that was determined. There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26. A total
remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide
how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has
been deducted). A 75 per cent majority vote would be required. The
Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would
then make formal determinations.

27. The pool
could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to
external bodies.

28. Remuneration
Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should
councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a
governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration
Authority?

· If
so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor
role, require a formal role description?

· Should
each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the
allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29. Comments:

(i) Setting a remuneration
pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is
allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

(ii) One issue to consider
relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is
fixed. If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number
of members on a board is increased or decreased, say by a review of
representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease
or increase accordingly. This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and
103 of the discussion document.

(iii) In view of this, the local board
might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance
responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv) A further issue to consider is
that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The
Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected
member remuneration. Council has not had to debate how remuneration might
be apportioned among governing body and local board members. This would
be a major change.

(v) Staff do not see any issues
with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30. The Authority
notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent
councils on various outside committees and bodies.

· Should
external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to
council positions of responsibility?

32. Comments:

(i) There are many bodies
such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected
members are appointed. These appointments are currently treated as
part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii) If the pool proposal allows
councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to
representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such
recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee
membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue
is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to CCOs

33. The Authority
notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

34. Remuneration
Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

· Do
the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected
members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid
to other CCO board members?

35. Comments:

(i) Auckland Council
cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland
Transport.

(ii) In the current term,
Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but
in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36. The
discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community
boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this
is clearly stated in any local board response.

37. Community
board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded
by way of a targeted rate.

38. Remuneration
Authority questions on community boards:

· Should
community board remuneration always come out of the council
governance/representation pool?

· If
not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

· If
not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration
of community board members?

Local Boards

39. The
discussion document does not mention local boards.

40. Most
local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41. Local
boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million
per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i) On
the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii) If the
Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a. Should
the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b. Should
the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing
body and each local board.

Local
government pay scale

42. The
discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to
other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale.
It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards
of directors. These are not elected member roles.

43. The document
then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44. Remuneration
Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate
for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration,
but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should
that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local
government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45. Comments:

(i) The Authority suggests
in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question
refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the
Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a
cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46. A
determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1
July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to
resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the
triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based
on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47. These
proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council. From its
inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully
determined by the Remuneration Authority.

48. The
remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise
varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the
position of making decisions about their own salaries.

Consideration

Local
board views and implications

49. This report
seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the
Remuneration Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be
reported individually to the Remuneration Authority.

Māori
impact statement

50. The level at
which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori
as compared with the wider community.

Implementation

51. Feedback from
the local board will be communicated to the Remuneration Authority.

1. To
provide information on the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland. The
report also provides the results of an analysis carried out by GNS Science,
identifying communities at risk from tsunami across Auckland.

2. In
addition, the report also seeks in-principle support for the proposed
enhancement of Auckland’s tsunami siren network.

Executive
summary

3. In
February 2017, the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group
Committee endorsed the draft Public Alerting Framework for Auckland.

4. Following
on from this, crown research agency, GNS Science was commissioned to provide an
analysis of those communities most at risk from tsunami within the orange and
red tsunami evacuation zones.

5. The
GNS report and the Public Alerting Framework was presented to local boards in
workshop sessions. Auckland Emergency Management is asking local boards for in
principle support for the Public Alerting Framework and for an enhanced tsunami
siren network.

6. Next
steps involve procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage. Further
information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will
be presented to local boards in due course.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) note
the approach to public alerting as outlined in the Public Alerting Framework
for Auckland (Attachment A to the agenda report).

b) provide in-principle support for the development of an enhanced
and expanded regional tsunami siren network, noting that further information
on design, placement and other considerations for the network will be
reported in due course.

Comments

Tsunami risk
for Auckland

7. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon consisting
of a series of waves generated when a large volume of water in the sea, or in a
lake, is rapidly displaced[1].
Tsunami threats pose a risk to New Zealand and to Auckland. Occurrence rates of
tsunami are higher in the Pacific than for other oceans because of the
"Ring of Fire".[2]
Tsunami waves are most commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. In
addition, these events have the potential to cause multiple other hazards
including but not limited to; fire, fault line ruptures, coastal inundation,
landslides, lifeline utility failures and serious health issues.[3]The
Tonga-Kermadec trench is one of the Earth’s deepest trenches, and is
Auckland’s highest risk for tsunami. Auckland is susceptible to regional
and distant source tsunami, that is, tsunami generated from earthquakes in and
around the Pacific Rim with travel time more than 1 hour as well as locally
generated tsunami. Tsunami can be categorised as local, regional or distant
based on their travel time or distance to the Auckland coastline.

· Local
source – less than 1 hour travel time. These tsunamis can be generated by
offshore faults, underwater landslide or volcanic activity.

· Regional
source – Earthquakes in and around the Pacific Islands and the
Tonga-Kermadec Trench 1 to 3 hours travel time to Auckland

· Distant
source – Commonly generated by a large earthquake from any location
around the Pacific Rim including but not limited to South America, Japan, the
Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The travel time to Auckland will be 3 hours or
greater. [4]

Figure 1. This map shows the position of
New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean within an area of intense seismic activity
called the ‘Ring of Fire’. Source: GNS Science

Tsunami
sirens

8. Currently,
Auckland has 44 fixed tsunami warning sirens across nine sites in legacy Rodney
and Waitakere. These sirens were installed in 2008 and 2010 and do not meet
current government technical standards[5]
for tsunami warning sirens. All new and existing siren installations will need
to meet these standards by June 2020.

9. Auckland
Emergency Management is currently investigating the upgrading of its existing
siren network from ‘tone-only’ sirens to those with PA/voiceover
loudspeaker capability. The sirens have a strong immediate effect and can
prompt immediate action to seek further information. There are valuable
benefits in using tsunami sirens, in particular, sirens can be used when other
communications (e.g. cell phones and radio broadcasting) may not have the
maximum reach or be as effective. It is commonly accepted across the emergency
management sector that effective public alerting systems are those that take a
holistic view. This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned,
understood, and in conjunction with effective public education information and
campaigns. This is imperative for a regionally consistent approach to public
alerting that communities can use and understand.

10. The
limited locations of the present tsunami siren systems have been identified as
a gap in the public alerting capabilities of Auckland region. Presently, Auckland
is not well represented by tsunami sirens with the estimated reach of
Auckland’s current sirens being only eight per cent of the
‘at-risk’ population. Auckland’s tsunami siren network is
currently being considered for enhancement and expansion through the delivery
of the Public Alerting Framework

Public Alerting Framework

11. Auckland
Council has recognised the need for a regionally consistent approach to public
alerting through the adoption of the Public Alerting Framework. The Framework,
which was approved for consultation with local boards in February 2017, has
been designed to:

· explain
what public alerting in a CDEM sense is, what it can and cannot do;

· give
detail on the range of channels for public alerting currently available in
Auckland;

· highlight
the advances being taken with regards to public alerting at a national level;

· provide
some commentary on tsunami sirens, their uses and limitations; and

· assist
with decisions taken by the Auckland CDEM Group Committee, local boards and
partners and stakeholders with regards to the prioritisation of budgets and
options for enhancing public alerting across the Auckland region.

12. Auckland
Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as
such, has allocated funds from the Long-Term Plan for this venture. This
funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of
Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.

13. It
is important to understand that no one public alerting system is without fault.
The Public Alerting Framework focusses on the use of multi-platforms,
understanding that a holistic approach is one that maximises the reach of
public alerting in an emergency or hazard event. Through this project,
prioritised public education is critical. Without effective public education
and engagement activities, sirens alone are not considered a standalone
approach to public alerting.

GNS Science
report

Introduction
and methodology

14. Following
the endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, crown research agency GNS
Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (see Appendix B) of
those communities most at-risk of tsunami.

15. A
GIS based analysis was used to calculate the number of exposed residents in
communities. The analysis used 2013 census population data to identify
the number of residents located in the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones.
(see Figure 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology
please see Appendix B.

Figure 2. Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used
in the GNS Science analysis

Results

16. The
results of the analysis carried out by GNS Science identified 217 communities
at-risk from tsunami. For all 217 communities modelled, there are a total of
49,853 people at-risk from tsunami in the orange and red evacuation zones. For
detailed information on the results of this analysis including detail on those
communities at risk of tsunami please refer to the report from GNS Science at
Appendix B.

Next steps

17. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region in
order to share the results of the GNS Science report and the intention to
implement an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network. This report
seeks in-principle support for this enhanced and expanded network. More
information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will
be reported in due course

Consideration

Local
board views and implications

18. Workshops
on tsunami risk were held with local boards in 2016. Following the
development of the Public Alerting Framework further information on tsunami
risk, including the results of the GNS Science report, were shared with local
boards between July and October 2017. Local boards were told that
in-principle support for the enhanced and expanded tsunami siren network would
be sought at formal business meetings of local boards.

19. As
key decision makers representing local communities, local board input into this
important project will continue.

Māori
impact statement

20. There
are no particular impacts on Maori communities which are different from the
general population arising from this report. The Public Alerting Framework
for Auckland notes the importance of community resilience, of reaching all
members of the community and of having systems in place to ensure that public
alert messages are understood and ubiquitous.

Implementation

21. Once
in-principle support has been achieved, procurement and design of tsunami siren
and signage will be undertaken.

1. To
provide comments to the Governing Body on the proposed process (in Attachment B
to the agenda report) for the review of representation arrangements.

Executive
summary

2. All
local authorities are required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to undertake a
review of representation arrangements at least once every six years in order to
determine their arrangements for the following elections.

3. Auckland
Council was established in 2010 and was not required to undertake a review of
representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, but is required to undertake
a review for the 2019 elections. The review will take place during 2018.

4. It
is possible to review the following for the Governing Body:

i. Whether
members are elected at-large or by ward or a combination

ii. If
elected by ward, the number of members in each ward, the ward boundaries and
ward names.

5. It
is possible to review the following for each local board:

i. The
number of members

ii. Whether
local board members are to be elected by subdivision or at large

iii. If
by subdivision, the number of members in each subdivision and the subdivision
boundaries and names

iv. The
local board name.

6. It
is not possible to review the number of governing body members. This is set in
the Auckland Council legislation. Other councils are able to review the number
of members.

7. It
is also not possible to review the boundaries, or number, of local boards. A
reorganisation process is required to do this. This is a separate process under
the legislation.

8. With
a governing body and 21 local boards, Auckland Council has more complex
arrangements than other councils and an efficient and effective process for
undertaking the review needs to be determined.

9. The
report attached as Attachment A was considered by the Governing Body on 28
September 2017. The report sets out the background and context to the review
and a proposed process for conducting the review.

10. The Governing
Body resolved a proposed process on 28 September 2017, as set out in Attachment
B, and is now seeking the views of local boards on this process.

11. In December
the Governing Body will resolve the final process for conducting the review,
following feedback from local boards on the proposed process.

12. This report
seeks the local boards’ views on the proposed process as set out in
Attachment B, for conducting the review of representation arrangements.

13. Representation
by way of establishing one or more Māori wards is being considered
separately by the Governing Body. There is not a similar provision for
Māori seats on local boards.

14. Feedback from
the local board will be communicated to the Governing Body 14 December 2017
meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) provide
its comments on the proposed process for conducting the review of
representation arrangements.

1. To
endorse the Waitematā Local Board feedback on the draft Auckland Plan
Refresh.

Executive
summary

2. In
June and July 2017 the Auckland Plan refresh team provided all local boards
with summaries of the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed
Auckland Plan for their consideration.

3. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July, and
feedback from stakeholders informed the further development of the content and
development of the strategic framework. The framework was approved in principle
by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017.

4. A
further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on
16 August. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be
further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

5. The
Waitematā Local Board held a workshop on 12 September 2017, to review the Auckland
Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and
the Development Strategy.

6. At
its 19 September 2017 business meeting, the board resolved to delegate to the
chair Pippa Coom and member Richard Northey to finalise the board’s
feedback by 30 September 2017 (WTM/2017/185). Feedback was subsequently
finalised and sent to the Auckland Plan Refresh team.

7. This
report seeks to endorse the formal feedback provided by the Waitematā
Local Board.

8. Further
Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise
draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to public consultation in
early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local
Board:

a) endorse the feedback on the draft Auckland Plan
Refresh (as per Attachment A to the agenda report).

The Waitematā Local Board
supports a bold and ambitious 30-year plan, which responds to the challenges
facing Auckland.

It is noted that the agreed approach
for the refresh is to streamline the plan to focus on the three major
challenges; scale of growth, greater environmental pressures and uneven
distribution of growth benefits. It is important however that the plan
also continues to fully contribute to Auckland’s social, economic,
environmental, and cultural well-being.

Whilst the Long-Term Plan is
principally a financial and resourcing document that sets the budget for
10-years, the Auckland Plan provides the only real opportunity to develop a
more comprehensive strategy, which lasts a generation.

Do the strategic directions and focus
areas address the issues that are important in achieving each outcome?

The role of social infrastructure is
critical in helping to mitigate the growth challenges and enable Auckland to be
a world class city where talent wants to live. It is vital that social
infrastructure be given the same priority in resourcing and timeliness as
physical infrastructure if we are to create communities and town centres that
are liveable and successful for everyone. The Board supports the
retention of the four wellbeing’s in the plan; social, economic,
environmental and cultural and endorses the inclusion of measures that reflect
all four areas.

Community infrastructure and events
play an important part in creating a sense of belonging for Aucklanders.
We wish to see an additional point in the focus area that supports taking a
proactive approach to planning for and developing social infrastructure in tandem
with the physical infrastructure.

With regards to the strategic
direction “Support an environment that retains and attracts skills,
talent and investment”, Richard Florida and others have demonstrated that
an urban environment with an active arts and cultural scene, great leisure
opportunities in a clean environment and a positive and tolerant atmosphere
encourages innovation from diverse communities. This environment also
retains and attracts people who are crucial to achieving the outcome of prosperity.
Therefore, the Board supports adding a new focus area to achieve this strategic
direction covering arts, culture, leisure and diversity.

It is important that the Auckland Plan
is ambitious and steers the multiple stakeholders to realise the Homes and
Places outcome and take action to increase affordable housing. An
advocacy position of the board is to ensure council actively builds and enables
others to provide affordable housing through appropriate mechanisms and tools.
For instance, Panuku Development Auckland’s remit is to utilise urban
development at scale and capture value from assets to deal with the demands of
our rapidly growing city. This land that is managed by Panuku presents
great opportunity to start addressing the important issues of provision of
affordable housing. We need to look to start tackling the housing crisis
by leveraging from our knowledge and resources e.g. in Waitematā we will
have significant brown field sites for development resulting from the removal
of the Dominion Road flyover and the CRL project.

In recognition of the diversity of our
city the previous Auckland Plan included a tailored approach e.g. Southern
Initiative and City Centre. The plan’s strategic directions and
supporting focus areas needs to acknowledge that at times a tailored approach
is required to achieve the outcomes for our communities across Auckland.
For instance, Transport and Connected emphasises roading and public transport
provision when in the City Centre active transport has already become a
predominant mode.

The strategic directions and focus
areas of the Auckland Plan rightly reflects the critical role of mana whenua
under the outcome “Maori Identity and Wellbeing”. However, it
is also important that the plan considers how mataawaka are also enabled to
thrive and develop their sense of identity and mana in Tamaki Makaurau.

Lastly it is unclear what the term
“cultural heritage” means under the Outcome “Environment and
Cultural Heritage” and it would be helpful to articulate it’s
meaning to assist future consultation and engagement.

Is this framework complementary to the
outcomes of the Waitematā Local Board Plan?

An outcome of the Waitematā Local
Board Plan is that our communities are inclusive, vibrant, healthy and
connected. The refreshed Auckland Plan complements this outcome with its
focus on inclusiveness and the importance of communities feeling
connected. The plan however does not reflect the critical role of health
and wellbeing. We would support greater emphasis in the plan on public
health, including combating alcohol harm, obesity and gambling and the role
that sports, art and leisure (informal and formal) play in people’s
health and wellbeing. For example, the proportion of children walking or
cycling to school needs to be a measure. We see council’s role as
influencing and collaborating in these areas. Sports, arts and culture
organisations and institutions are highly important and need to be strong and
effective.

The board supports the inclusion of
the focus area “to move towards a safe transport network free from death
and serious injury” under the Access and Connectivity outcome.
Waitematā Local Board continues to advocate for street designs, which
deliver slower traffic speeds, better and safer intersections and footpaths and
cycle lanes designed and built to worldwide best practice. A
comprehensive approach to safety is required and this should include a target
in the Auckland Plan of zero serious injuries or deaths on our roads (vision
zero).

Nearly 80,000 commuters, students,
shoppers and visitors travel to the city centre every weekday morning between
7am and 9am. This movement has a significant impact on the existing
transport network, with a third of Auckland’s congestion in the city
centre. We would like to see the inclusion of a mode share target for
increasing active transport in Auckland included in the plan and a target of
reducing single occupancy vehicles coming into the city centre to support the
outcome of Transport and Connectivity

We want to see the health of our
environment enhanced, our waterways healthy and the urban forest cover
increased. The plan identifies the loss of valuable green assets as a
result of urban sprawl. The Board would like to see the focus area
“protect the significant environments, cultural heritage and taonga tuku
iho of Tāmaki Makaurau from further loss” strengthened to state that
the focus is about increasing our significant environments, including
the urban forest cover. In regards to climate change, the plan needs a
bold target of net zero emissions by 2050.

Built heritage is currently absent in
the plan’s strategic framework. As Auckland grows, it is crucial to
preserve the distinctive character of our neighbourhoods. We want to see
the refreshed Auckland Plan embrace the past and value our public and private
heritage assets.

Feedback Summary

The Board
supports:

- the refresh being bold,
comprehensive and ambitious and a plan that responds to the challenges facing
Auckland and contributes to the four well beings.

- a plan which reflects the
importance of planning for and developing social infrastructure at the beginning
of a development to support belonging and participation in our communities

- adding a new focus area
covering arts, culture, leisure and diversity to attract and retain skills,
talent and investment.

- the refresh being
ambitious with regards to housing to steer the multiple stakeholders to
increase affordable housing by leveraging off existing knowledge and
resources. For example, brownfield sites created as a result of the CRL
development

- consideration on how the
plan reflects the need to take a tailored approach at times to achieve the
outcomes for our communities across Auckland e.g. the Southern Initiative and
City Centre

- the addition of the Maori
Identity and Wellbeing outcome and seeks for the plan to also consider how
mataawaka are enabled to thrive and develop their sense of identity and mana in
Tāmaki Makaurau

- the meaning of
“Cultural Heritage” being clarified

- greater emphasis on
public health, including combating alcohol harm, obesity and gambling and the
role that sports, art and leisure (informal and formal) play in people’s
health and wellbeing

- the “move towards a
safe transport network free from death and serious injury” focus area and
seeks the inclusion of a zero serious injuries or deaths on our roads target

- the inclusion of a mode
share target for increasing active transport and a target of reducing single
occupancy vehicles entering the city centre

- the inclusion of a bold
target of net zero emissions by 2050

- the inclusion of built
heritage in the plan and recognition of the need to preserve our neighbourhoods
distinctive character